ATARA @ ATAR SINGH vs PARVEEN KUMAR AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/38290/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011103892025

Filing Number

CRM-M/57980/2025

Filing Date

16-Jul-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/38290/2025

Registration Date

18-Jul-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ATARA @ ATAR SINGH

    Adv. RISHI PAL CHAUDHARY

  2. 2.ATARA @ ATAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARVEEN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.ATARA @ ATAR SINGH

  3. 3.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/38290/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner Atara Singh's petition challenging an appellate court order requiring him to deposit 20% of a ₹3,00,000 compensation award in a cheque bounce case under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court rejected his claims of financial hardship, finding his Family ID document (showing ₹1,00,000-1,40,000 annual income) was merely self-serving, unverified evidence insufficient to overcome contrary material showing he owns agricultural land, received inheritance proceeds from property sales, maintains commercial dealings, and owns a constructed house. The court upheld the deposit requirement, holding that mere inconvenience cannot override statutory pre-deposit mandates except in cases of extreme hardship convincingly established with credible documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/38290/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/38290/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner Atara Singh's petition challenging an appellate court order requiring him to deposit 20% of a ₹3,00,000 compensation award in a cheque bounce case under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court rejected his claims of financial hardship, finding his Family ID document (showing ₹1,00,000-1,40,000 annual income) was merely self-serving, unverified evidence insufficient to overcome contrary material showing he owns agricultural land, received inheritance proceeds from property sales, maintains commercial dealings, and owns a constructed house. The court upheld the deposit requirement, holding that mere inconvenience cannot override statutory pre-deposit mandates except in cases of extreme hardship convincingly established with credible documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case